No Concho, we’re just tired of the smear and slander debate technique. In God we trust, everybody else bring data.
Unfortunately, everybody is learning to debate like the elementary students in bible camp to refute evolution. Cry ridiculous, that’s not so!, state they can’t disprove your point and smear any source, while presenting none.
Universal healthcare is a potential solution, however, it is not panacea.
The NHS has a budget of $104 billion GBP. Or the equivalent of $210 Billion US dollars. There are three other health plans in the UK. And private insurance for those that want it to cover on top.
Their population of 60.7 Million people, not quite twice California, and a mere 1/5th of the USA. Their area is 224K km^2. Slightly over 1/2 the area of California. 1/40th of the area of the USA.
At equal spending per capita, we will have a NHS budget of $1 Trillion dollars. That does not include the equivalent of the other three plans or private insurance on top. It also assumes no diseconomies of scale for trying to cover 40X the area with 1/2 the density.
At the core of the health care problem is a macro-economic fundamental. Public goods, those goods that are consumed without direct perceived cost to the end-user, have no incentive to prevent inefficient and excessive consumption.
